( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC moved by the defendant no. 3 and application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff as both these applications are interlinked and fate of one shall decide the fate of the other.

( 2 ) THE question that calls for determination is whether the word essel is one of the most commonly used name in the business and trading in India and, therefore. plaintiff/applicant has no sole proprietary right to use the same and restrain others from using it in any kind of business activities as the defendant no. 3 has taken the stand that this word is being commonly used by large number of persons in business and other activities and that not less than 150 companies are using the name/mark essel.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF seeks protection of the trade name essel as well as domain name ESSELSOFT. COM mainly on the following premises:-

I) That the plaintiff founded the companies with prefix ESSEL in 1982 and has been a pioneer in the manufacture of fully collapsible laminated tubes, co-extruded seamless tubes and laminates and is part of us$ one billion Essel Group which has interests in media/entertainment,